Baylor Composite Control — 2025 | Punt & Rally
2025 Composite Control — Game Control + Momentum Control
Composite Score
47
Composite Rank: #90  •  4–7 (FBS games)
GC Score
32.7
#103 in FBS
GC Net
-28.2
Raw GC Net
GC Off
21.3
SOS-Adj Offense
GC Allowed
49.5
Avg Allowed ↓
MC Score
61.2
#75 in FBS
MC Net
-0.75
Raw MC Net
MC Off
0.45
Adj. Sequences
MC Win%
50%
When winning MC
MC > GC by 29 points. Baylor generated strong consecutive scoring sequences (Momentum Control score: 61.2) but spent more time in contested win probability territory than their sequence count suggests (Game Control score: 32.7). This profile suggests a team that delivers explosive scoring runs but also plays in close, contested games.
Game Control Game-by-Game Win Probability Log
Wk Opponent Result GC Scores Avg WP% Ctrl% Never Trailed
GC Off GC Allowed GC Net
1 Auburn H L 24–38 18.3 68.4 -50.1 28.8% 11%
2 SMU A W 48–45 12.9 64.6 -51.7 30.9% 1.1%
3 Samford H 94.1 3.8 +90.3 90.6% 97%
4 Arizona State H L 24–27 21.1 35.7 -14.6 46.9% 4.4%
5 Oklahoma State A W 45–27 72 11.5 +60.5 72.4% 62%
6 Kansas State H W 35–34 27.2 42.3 -15.1 44.5% 14.9%
8 TCU A L 36–42 10.3 66.9 -56.6 22.2% 0%
9 Cincinnati A L 20–41 4.2 93.1 -88.9 10.5% 0%
10 UCF H W 30–3 94 3 +90.9 92.4% 95%
12 Utah H L 28–55 9 79 -70 21.4% 1.2%
13 Arizona A L 17–41 21.2 49.7 -28.6 37% 5.6%
14 Houston H L 24–31 10.8 76.1 -65.2 27.1% 0%
4W / 11G
Momentum Control Game-by-Game Scoring Sequences Log
Wk Opponent Result Opponent-Adjusted Raw Edge Opp Wt
MC Off MC Def ↓ MC Net Off Def ↓
1 Auburn H L 24–38 0 4.84 -4.84 0 2 ✗ 0
1
2 SMU A W 48–45 0 2.1 -2.1 0 1 ✗ 0
1
4 Arizona State H L 24–27 0 0 +0 0 0 Tied
1
5 Oklahoma State A W 45–27 0 0 +0 0 0 Tied
0.57
6 Kansas State H W 35–34 0 1.59 -1.59 0 1 ✗ 0
1
8 TCU A L 36–42 2.17 2.17 +0 1 1 Tied
1
9 Cincinnati A L 20–41 2.39 4.77 -2.38 1 2 ✗ 1
1
10 UCF H W 30–3 1.42 0 +1.42 2 0 ✓ +2
0.71
12 Utah H L 28–55 0 4.63 -4.63 0 2 ✗ 0
1
13 Arizona A L 17–41 0 1.36 -1.36 0 1 ✗ 0
1
14 Houston H L 24–31 2.55 1.28 +1.27 2 1 ✓ +2
1
4W / 11G 6 11